Well, here are a couple suggestions from the guy who sucks at statistics:

I'm assuming you have a table that's basically X and Y coordinates for each shot.

I'd suggest:
1. Center the grouping: Average of all of the X values. Add this value to all of the X values. Average all of the Y values. Add this to all of the Y values.
2. For each shot, determin the distance the shot is from the center of the group. I believe the best approache would be taking sqrt((X^2)+(Y^2)).
3. Average the distance each shot is from the center of the group.

Well, here are a couple suggestions from the guy who sucks at statistics:

I'm assuming you have a table that's basically X and Y coordinates for each shot.

I'd suggest:1. Center the grouping: Average of all of the X values. Add this value to all of the X values. Average all of the Y values. Add this to all of the Y values.2. For each shot, determin the distance the shot is from the center of the group. I believe the best approache would be taking sqrt((X^2)+(Y^2)).3. Average the distance each shot is from the center of the group.

you don't need to do that if you use a standard deviation - the SD will tell you how far from the mean all of the shots are.

If you wanted to do analysis of how consistent the pattern was - then you would need to normalize the data. for our needs - the SD works fine.

After looking at the data and manipulating it the way I had suggested, I would conclude that they are all about the same. I'm not seeing any pattern to the data that could be used to conclude that any specifc relationship between accuracy and bore size/length/number of pieces.

I found the center of each group, and then the distance each shot was from the center. Graphed the average and standard deviation. "Two" is for the two piece, "One" is for the one piece. I dropped the Dye/Armson/Empire barrels off the list so it's all from one manufacturer.

oh! that was creative i wouldn't have thought to do it that way.... though it does make the data more difficult to interprate.

why is the higher varriance from the vector the more accurate?

i wish you took pictures of the clusters.... which barrel had te tightest clusters?

thats the way bryce graphed it. he is comparing the average of all the vectors, to each vector individually, some were better, others were worse. he arbitrarily said that better vector = higher on the graph.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

oh! that was creative i wouldn't have thought to do it that way.... though it does make the data more difficult to interprate.

why is the higher varriance from the vector the more accurate?

i wish you took pictures of the clusters.... which barrel had te tightest clusters?

thats the way bryce graphed it. he is comparing the average of all the vectors, to each vector individually, some were better, others were worse. he arbitrarily said that better vector = higher on the graph.

Very interesting test guys! Great job. I'm still studying the results right now, so sorry if I miss something.

So is the higher variance better or is the variance closest to zero better?

Well, based on my interpretation of the data, I'm planning to buy either a 14" one-piece 0.685 bore CP barrel (in other words, the smallest bore one-piece barrel CP makes with 10" unported) or a the smallest bore Lapco barrel I can find.

Well, after looking at the data from the accuracy test, I don't think it's possible to say that some specific length/bore size/pieces is more accurate than any other. The test shows some variation, but there's no general trend. Unless someone can massage the data and get something else (and show there work), I'm going to stick with the assumption that accuracy is generally equal.

Based on the barrel break test, underboring doesn't break significantly more paint. It's possible that underboring breaks LESS pant, but there isn't enough data to say for sure.

Underboring does provide better efficiency than overboring, somewhere around 10% when compering a 0.693 to a 0.679.

With one-piece CP barrels (with about 4" of porting at the end), 14" barrels give better efficiency than 12", and 12" are better than 10". For 2-piece CP barrels, it's all about the same regardless of the length of the tip, but you're better off with the 1-piece.

So I just took a look at the raw data, and from what I can tell it seems to me that I should be picking up either a Dye Ultralight with a small bore back so that I can underbore or the same deal with the CP barrels

think of the vector this way: it's the radius of a circle that would contain %68 of all shots fired from that barrel. double that and the circle would contain %95 of the shots. So, a vector of 3" would mean that %68 of paintballs would land in a circle 6" across - and %95 in a circle 12" across. make sense?

I really see that nothing corresponds to accuracy. I cant see any factor that makes a barrel more or less accurate. What is your opinion Cockerpunk?

We also seem to see no real pattern here. You also have to take into consideration the scale of the data. The worst to best is only a difference of a bit over 1" in vector. That's really not much to go on. Our graphs make it easy to see the difference - but the scatter on the board doesn't really.

So I just took a look at the raw data, and from what I can tell it seems to me that I should be picking up either a Dye Ultralight with a small bore back so that I can underbore or the same deal with the CP barrels

the problem with the dye barrels is that they were sold as the same barrel. Those barrels don't have a bore marked on them. Also, keep in mind that the dye only performed about ONE INCH better than the worst barrel.

i wish you took pictures of the clusters.... which barrel had te tightest clusters?

you can make your own pictures of the impact locations - we gave you x and y co-ordinates for every impact during the test.

Efficiency. Does anyone buy a barrel to make their gun more efficient? We want to hear about accuracy! What common factors make a barrel more accurate?

Nothing makes a barrel more accurate. Look at the data. They're all essentially the same. So, since you can't get accuracy from a barrel, you might as well get what you can, which is fewer runs to a fill station.

When you look at the comparable CP barrels with equal bores and lengths you notice a pattern that tends to favor the two piece barrels:
One Piece 12"
Bore SD
.685 4.29
.689 2.82
.693 3.7
Two Piece 12"
.685 3.14
.689 4.07
.693 3.44

You can see that in 2 out of the 3 test groups two piece barrels did better than one piece barrels. Its disappointing to not see any significant underboring in a one piece barrel, or the huge overboring that was possible in the two piece barrels. That would increase our basis for comparison greatly.

I don't know if I can call a clear winner yet... This is frustrating. I want there to be a resolution to these questions, not more questions!

Perhaps the accuracy is correlated to ball size and roundness. If some balls are more oblong than round, perhaps that will affect it's trajectory. One ball that is bigger than another would make me think it would travel differently. It would be paintstaking work to presort the balls, organize them, and then record each ball but it might show a trend.

Perhaps the accuracy is correlated to ball size and roundness. If some balls are more oblong than round, perhaps that will affect it's trajectory. One ball that is bigger than another would make me think it would travel differently. It would be paintstaking work to presort the balls, organize them, and then record each ball but it might show a trend.

the issue with that is then looking at how to use that in real life, on the paintball field.

are you gonna bring a mic and mic every paintball before a game? how can we use that knowledge, if we actually can?

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

Perhaps the accuracy is correlated to ball size and roundness. If some balls are more oblong than round, perhaps that will affect it's trajectory. One ball that is bigger than another would make me think it would travel differently. It would be paintstaking work to presort the balls, organize them, and then record each ball but it might show a trend.

the issue with that is then looking at how to use that in real life, on the paintball field.

are you gonna bring a mic and mic every paintball before a game? how can we use that knowledge, if we actually can?

No, of course we can't measure the balls before games. If ball roundness and size is tied to accuracy, what it can do is scientifically put the majority of the responsibility on the paintball manufacturer. That added pressure along with more demand from the public might influence them to increase their manufacturing standards.

The biggest advantage to doing a test like that is ruling out variables. Why not start with the thing that we're using to test?

it would be interesting to see you re-test the best 3 barrels and see if the results change. looks as if most of the barrels are so close that the differences in accuracy may just be small variances in the constistancy of the gun and paint

it would be interesting to see you re-test the best 3 barrels and see if the results change. looks as if most of the barrels are so close that the differences in accuracy may just be small variances in the constistancy of the gun and paint

in both the chrono test and this test at least one setup was tested twice. i think it was the .682/12" in this case, but it might have been the .683 instead.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

I for one, am really happy withthe results. I LOVE to hear that barrels don't make a paintbal gun more accurate. That is one less thing to worry about!

*cough* paint test! *cough*

But seriously. It would be pretty amazing to do an accuracy of a bunch of different paint. Costly? Yes. Hard to find consistent paint? Yes.

Maybe you could start by using a couple different brands of paint to verify that paint makes a staistically significant different in accuracy. If that is the case, then maybe test some paint. Unfoirtunately there are a couple variables that are super hard to test - like how well a ball breaks, or how well a ball tolerates a prticular gun.

No, of course we can't measure the balls before games. If ball roundness and size is tied to accuracy, what it can do is scientifically put the majority of the responsibility on the paintball manufacturer. That added pressure along with more demand from the public might influence them to increase their manufacturing standards.

The biggest advantage to doing a test like that is ruling out variables. Why not start with the thing that we're using to test?

The Manufacturers already make good paint, it is just more costly. Most players cant afford to buy Marbs or Evil or whatever everytime they go out. Unless there is a better process of manufacturing paintballs.

But on a different note, maybe this will save the public from buying a barrel that honestly makes no difference and put that money towards better paint.

is there a way to say: most acurate barrell = lenght, bore, and two/one piece ????

i mean , after all that testing, are you saying that there is no way to point out ONE barrel as the best barrel??? please i was hoping to see something like that. i actually though that was the intention of the testing. please could you do something like TESTS RESULTS FOR DUMMIES !! LOL it's just that every time i look at the graphs and the numbers i get even more confused... just pick a winner please !!! jajaj thanks